HIBAPRESS – Abdellatif Baraka
In the official atmosphere that followed King Mohammed VI's opening of the new parliamentary session, an action was taken by an elected member of parliament that did not align with the spirit of the royal speech, when parliamentarian Mohammed Simo took a surprising step outside the dome, raising a slogan that carried within it division and criminalization: "Death, death to the enemy, the King has his people."
Such an act, in a high-profile national moment, raises unavoidable questions: Is it a deliberate abortion of the content of the royal speech? Or a spontaneous expression of an emotion that has not yet been tamed?
– The content of the royal speech: A call to accelerate achievement and national consensus
In his opening speech of the legislative session, the King called for the last year of parliament to be an opportunity for serious and responsible work, to complete pending legislative projects, and to achieve a "new generation of territorial development programs" with a focus on social and spatial justice, and the involvement of all parties in the path of construction and development. He also pointed out that achieving this direction does not allow empty political conflict or marginal bidding, but requires adherence to the spirit of consensus, and staying away from distractions that distract from the real issues of citizens.
In accordance with this speech, the corridors of Parliament were supposed to be paved for a political stage that is based on listening, joint action, and overcoming narrow differences that may weaken the trust between representatives on the one hand and between them and citizens on the other.
– The act in question: Overcoming the speech and reproducing division
But what Simo did was not just a fleeting slip, but an implicit message: that the royal speech, in his view or the logic of his opponents, is not translated into parliamentary reality.
By repeating a slogan that classifies one people and another as an "enemy", he suggested at the moment of popular and political movement that division, or even confrontation, is the approach.
And this is not the first time a deviation in political discourse has been observed; but the surprising thing is that the starting point was after directly the dome and receiving the King's speech, at a time that is supposed to reflect respect for the King's message and his will to turn Parliament into a machine for achievement.
– The responsibility of the elected: A bridge, not a wall
Politics is not slogans launched in the street, but an action practiced within institutions, and especially within Parliament. The supposed official does not utter words of criminalization, but invests them in bridges, not building barriers with them that alienate society from its representative institutions.
It would have been more appropriate for our parliamentary elites to show an awareness that wants cohesion, not fragmentation, and to offer initiatives to bring the groups closer together instead of trying to distance themselves. To question, to dialogue, and to formulate the discourse in a way that rises to the level of the citizen's aspirations, not to move away from it in a language of threat or contempt.
Perhaps Simo did not understand, or forgot, that the King called for the mobilization of all parties to achieve development and justice, not a speech that reduces the homeland to a duality of "with" and "against".
It is unfortunate that the first elected official after the royal speech became the one who did not understand the message, or perhaps intended to defy it, and chose the slogan that cuts off the dialogue and closes the doors.
And it is a call to every elected official who respects the trust: Do not speak in the name of the homeland if your base in it is not comprehensive, and do not describe any citizen as an "enemy", as the tongue is the enemy of its owner and must always beware of it.
